# Arun Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1771
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-08
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 18495 of 2021
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arun-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51881
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

1772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Civil Law -stamp deficiency-correct stamp
duty payable for a property transaction-
classification of the land as commercial or
non-agricultural-sale
deed
initially
mentioned the property as commerciallater on correction deed executed stating
property to be non-agricultural- spot
verification carried out by the authorities
of utmost relevance-description of the
property as given by vendor/vendee in a
registration deed- cannot be accepted as
ultimate truth de hors spot inspection
report-property in the instant case was
non-commercial as per spot inspection-
impugned order quashed- petition allowed.
(Paras 8 and 9)

HELD:
The approach of the authorities below is without
any basis in law as they have imposed the
deficient stamp duty only for the reason that the
petitioner had initially in the sale deed mentioned
the property as commercial land. The authorities
below have not considered the fact that this
mistake of mentioning the land as commercial
was rectified by the petitioner. (Para 8)

It is to be noted that the relevance of the spot
verification carried out by the authorities
themselves is paramount in nature and it is from
such verification that the assessment was carried
out by the authorities with regard to the nature
of the land. For example, if a person in a deed of
sale St.s that the land, that is being sold, is
agricultural land containing a water body and on
the spot verification it is found out that the land
is actually being used for the purpose of running
a factory, it is the spot verification that has to be
taken into consideration by the authorities
concerned. The description of the property as
given by the vendor/vendee in a registration deed
cannot, under any circumstances, be accepted as
the ultimate truth de hors the inspection carried
out by the authorities. (Para 9)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

## Text

5 All. Arun Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1771
in awarding interest on the additional
amount of compensation awarded by him.
Para 13 of the Law Report is quoted below:
-

"Shri
Goswamy
has
next
contended that while re-determining the
amount of compensation under Section 28A it is not permissible for the Collector to
award interest on the additional amount of
compensation awarded by him for the
reason that under Section 28 of the Act only
the court can direct payment of interest on
the excess amount awarded as compensation
and no such power is conferred on the
Collector and, therefore, interest cannot be
awarded by the Collector on the additional
amount of compensation determined under
Section 28-A. It is no doubt true that under
Section 28 only the court can direct payment
of interest on the excess amount awarded as
compensation and the Collector is not
competent to award interest on the
additional amount of compensation under
the said provision. But sub-section (2) of
Section 28-A provides that after an
application has been submitted under subsection (1) of Section 28-A the Collector
after conducting an inquiry makes an award
determining the amount of compensation
payable to the applicants and under subsection (3) of Section 28-A any person who
has not accepted the award under subsection (2) may move the Collector
requiring that the matter be referred for
determination to the court and the provisions
of Sections 18 to 28 have been made
applicable to such reference. This would
show that after an application has been
submitted under Section 28-A(l) for redetermination
of
the
amount
of
compensation the process of such redetermination results in making of an award
by the Collector and a person not accepting
the said award can move the Collector to
refer
the
matter
to
the
Court
for
determination
and
such
reference
is
governed by Sections 18 to 28. If that is so,
Section 34 of the Act would be applicable to
the award that is made by the Collector
under sub-section (2) of Section 28-A and it
would be permissible for him to award
interest under Section 34 on the additional
amount of compensation awarded by him.
The second contention urged by Shri
Goswamy is, therefore, rejected."

26. In our opinion, viewed from any
angle, the irresistible conclusion is that the
Collector shall have full power to award
interest on the enhanced compensation
amount awarded by him under Section 28-A
of the Act.

27. In view of the foregoing
discussions, the contention on behalf of the
petitioner does not merit acceptance and,
consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.

28. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1771
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

Writ - C No. 18495 of 2021

Arun Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. S.K. Tyagi, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mr. Rishi Kumar, Addl. Chief Standing
Counsel
1772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Civil Law -stamp deficiency-correct stamp
duty payable for a property transaction-
classification of the land as commercial or
non-agricultural-sale
deed
initially
mentioned the property as commerciallater on correction deed executed stating
property to be non-agricultural- spot
verification carried out by the authorities
of utmost relevance-description of the
property as given by vendor/vendee in a
registration deed- cannot be accepted as
ultimate truth de hors spot inspection
report-property in the instant case was
non-commercial as per spot inspection-
impugned order quashed- petition allowed.
(Paras 8 and 9)

HELD:
The approach of the authorities below is without
any basis in law as they have imposed the
deficient stamp duty only for the reason that the
petitioner had initially in the sale deed mentioned
the property as commercial land. The authorities
below have not considered the fact that this
mistake of mentioning the land as commercial
was rectified by the petitioner. (Para 8)

It is to be noted that the relevance of the spot
verification carried out by the authorities
themselves is paramount in nature and it is from
such verification that the assessment was carried
out by the authorities with regard to the nature
of the land. For example, if a person in a deed of
sale St.s that the land, that is being sold, is
agricultural land containing a water body and on
the spot verification it is found out that the land
is actually being used for the purpose of running
a factory, it is the spot verification that has to be
taken into consideration by the authorities
concerned. The description of the property as
given by the vendor/vendee in a registration deed
cannot, under any circumstances, be accepted as
the ultimate truth de hors the inspection carried
out by the authorities. (Para 9)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.)

1. This is a writ petition under article
226 of the Constitution of India wherein
the petitioner has prayed for the issuance
of a writ of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated June 8, 2021 passed
by Deputy Commissioner Stamps, Kanpur
Region, Kanpur/the respondent No. 2 and
the impugned order dated December 4,
2020
passed
by
Collector
Stamps,
Etawah/the respondent No.3

FACTS

2. Factual matrix of the present case
is delineated below:

a) The case pertains to payment
of deficient stamp duty while registering a
sale-deed bearing Document No.2266 of
2017, dated April 7, 2017, whereby the
petitioner had purchased Plot No.388, area
162.63
square
meters
in
Mohalla
Manikpur Vishu, Etawah at the rate of
Rs.18000/- per square meter and paid
stamp duty of Rs. 2,05,100 at a rate of 7
percent.

b) On February 22, 2018, a
report was submitted by the office of the
Accountant General, Lucknow to the
respondent No.3 that there is deficiency in
the stamp duty on the aforesaid sale-deed.
Subsequently, a case was registered
against the petitioner by issuing notice to
him.

c) On August 5, 2019, the
petitioner submitted his objection with a
prayer that in order to ascertain the correct
fact as to whether the plot in question is
commercial
or
non-commercial,
the
competent authority is required to get the
spot inspected.

d) The respondent No.3 directed
the the Deputy Registrar, Etawah/the
respondent No.4 to make a spot inspection
of the land in question. The respondent
No.4 made the spot inspection on January
6, 2019 and submitted his report on January
7, 2019.
5 All. Arun Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1773

e) On December 4, 2020, the
respondent No.3 passed an order directing
the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty
of Rs.6,03,190/- along with a penalty of
Rs.1,000/-, totaling Rs. 6,04,190/-, with
respect to the sale deed bearing Document
No.2266/2017.
He
also
directed
the
petitioner to pay interest at the rate of 1.50
percent per month on the deficit stamp duty
from the date of execution of the instrument
i.e. April 7, 2017 till the date of deposit of
the stamp duty.

f) Against the order passed by
respondent No.3, the petitioner filed an
appeal under Section 56 of the Indian
Stamps Act, 1899 before the respondent
No.2 who, vide order dated June 8, 2021,
rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner
and upheld the order dated December 4,
2020 passed by the respondent No.3.

g) It is to be noted that the
petitioner made an application before the
Competent Authority for rectification of the
sale deed indicating the nature of the land to
be agricultural. Such application was
allowed on March 8, 2021.

h) Being aggrieved by the orders
dated December 4, 2020 and June 8, 2021
passed by the authorities below, the
petitioner has preferred the instant writ
petition before this Court.

CONTENTIONS
OF
THE
PETITIONER

3. Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner has made the
following submissions in the matter:

i. Initially there was an error in the
sale deed in question as in the sale deed the
land was described as commercial instead of
non-agricultural.
This
mistake
was
subsequently
rectified
and
the
word
'commercial' was substituted by the word
'non-agricultural'. The rectification was
duly approved by the registration authority
and the stamp duty was paid accordingly.

ii. The authorities below have
passed the impugned orders in violation of
established legal procedures. This includes
non consideration of important evidence
such as the spot inspection report submitted
by the the respondent No. 4 which should
have been given due weightage in the
decision making process.

iii. The impugned orders are
arbitrary and illegal since they are based on
non-existing grounds. This is evident from
the fact that the land in question was
determined to be agricultural in nature, not
commercial, as per the spot inspection
report.
 iv. The petitioner corrected the
mistake in the sale-deed promptly upon
discovering it. The correction deed clearly
states that the land is non-agricultural and
not commercial. Therefore, any penalty or
deficiency imposed based on the initial
mistake
should
not
apply
after
the
correction.

v. The petitioner paid stamp duty
based
on
the
correct
valuation
of
Rs.18,000/- per square meter for agricultural
land. The authorities incorrectly valued it at
the rate of Rs.71,000/- per square meter for
commercial land, leading to the alleged
deficiency.

vi. The respondent No.4 in the
spot inspection found no construction on the
land
and
recommended
valuation
at
Rs.18000/- per square meter. However, the
respondent No.3 and the respondent No.2
relied on the report submitted by the office
of the Accountant General, which is based
on non-existing grounds.

vii. The authorities failed to
consider crucial evidences, such as the
Khasra showing the land as agricultural, the
correction made in the sale-deed and the
1774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
spot inspection report confirming the nature
of the land as non-agricultural.

viii. The petitioner deposited a
sum to satisfy the revenue authorities and
avoid coercive measures such as arrest. This
action was taken under duress and does not
validate the legality of the orders passed.

CONTENTIONS
OF
THE
RESPONDENTS

4. Sri Rishi Kumar, Additional Chief
Standing Counsel, has made the following
submissions in the matter:

I. The petitioner did not pay the
required stamp duty on a commercial land as
per the prevailing rates.

II. The orders passed by the
authorities are neither unreasoned nor
unlawful and have been passed after due
consideration
of
the
rules
and
the
regulations, without any illegality.

III. The circle rates are set
annually by the District Magistrate and the
deficiency in stamp duty was correctly
identified and imposed.
 IV. In the sale deed itself, it has
been mentioned by the petitioner that the
land in question is commercial, and
therefore, as per Column 5, Serial No.8 Page
72 of the prevalent rate list dated June 8,
2016, the total valuation was calculated to
Rs. 1,15,46,730/- on which stamp duty of
Rs. 8,08,290/- was required to be paid,
whereas
the
petitioner
has
paid
Rs.2,05,100/- only against the stamp duty.
So, there is a clear deficiency of stamp duty
of Rs. 6,03,190/-.

ANALYSSIS

5. I have heard the counsel appearing
on behalf of the parties and perused the
materials on record.
6. The present case involves a
dispute with regard to correct stamp duty
payable for a property transaction due to the
classification of the land as commercial or
non-agricultural. The petitioner argues that
the rectification was promptly made upon
discovering the initial mistake and that the
authorities failed to consider the crucial
evidences supporting the non-commercial
classification. On the other hand, the
respondents assert that the deficiency in the
stamp duty was correctly identified based on
prevailing rates and the petitioner's own
declaration in the sale-deed.

7. Upon a perusal of the order passed
by the respondent No.3, it can be seen that
he has relied upon the objections of the
Accountant General with respect to the sale
deed in question and came to the conclusion
that the sold land was shown to be of
commercial nature at the time of the
registration of the sale deed. Hence, the sale
deed shall be subjected to the calculation of
stamp fee at the commercial rate of
Rs.71,000/- per square meter.

7. It can be further noted from the
perusal of the appellate order passed by the
respondent No.2 that he also made the same
finding that on the date of the registration of
the sale deed, the land was shown as the
commercial land by the parties and in light
of this fact, the spot inspection report
submitted by the respondent No.4 can not be
accepted and the order passed by the
respondent No.3 was upheld.

8. The approach of the authorities
below is without any basis in law as they
have imposed the deficient stamp duty only
for the reason that the petitioner had initially
in the sale deed mentioned the property as
commercial land. The authorities below
have not considered the fact that this mistake
5 All. Anand Kishor Devacharaya & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1775
of mentioning the land as commercial was
rectified by the petitioner.

9. It is to be noted that the relevance of
the spot verification carried out by the
authorities themselves is paramount in
nature and it is from such verification that
the assessment was carried out by the
authorities with regard to the nature of the
land. For example, if a person in a deed of
sale states that the land, that is being sold, is
agricultural land containing a water body
and on the spot verification it is found out
that the land is actually being used for the
purpose of running a factory, it is the spot
verification that has to be taken into
consideration by the authorities concerned.
The description of the property as given by
the vendor/vendee in a registration deed
cannot, under any circumstances, be
accepted as the ultimate truth de hors the
inspection carried out by the authorities.

10. In the present case, it is clear that
the spot verification carried out by the
authorities indicated that the property was
non commercial in nature. The rejection of
such spot verification without assigning any
reason to the same only on the basis that the
deed that was registered, indicated that the
property was commercial in nature, is
clearly arbitrary and illegal in law.

11. In light of the same, the
impugned orders dated December 4, 2020
and June 8, 2021 are quashed and set-aside.
The authorities are directed to refund the
deficient stamp duty, if any, paid by the
petitioner within a period of six weeks from
date.

12. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1775
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ - C No. 3000007 of 2015

Anand Kishor Devacharaya & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Karunakar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - ceiling proceedings challengedSections 10 (2) & 13 of U. P. Imposition of
Land Holdings Act, 1960-impugned orderdeclaration of surplus land-land recorded
in the name of ancestors also included-U.P.
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
(Amendment) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act 18 of
1973)- Section 19 of the Amendment Actproceedings initiated under unamended
Act stood abated on 08.06.1973-fresh
proceedings could only be initiated by
issuing a fresh notice-under Section 9(2) of
the Act-impugned orders quashed-petition
allowed. (Paras 18 to 21)

HELD:
In view of the provisions contained in Section
19(1) of the Amendment Act, 1972, all the
proceedings initiated under the unamended Act
stood abated on 08.06.1973. The Prescribed
Authority could have initiated fresh proceedings
by issuing a notice under Section 9 (2) of the Act.
(Para 19)

Therefore, the proceedings instituted on the
basis of notice issued to Maharaja Dharmendra
Pratap Singh, stood abated in view of the
provisions contained in Section 19 of the
amendment Act. Fresh proceedings could only be
initiated by issuing a fresh notice under Section 9